I don’t have any insight into the new Admin’s reorganization plans, I did hear rumors. Retired employee Kathy Kurtz was kind enough to share with me various Transformation documents from the 2007-ish period.  I am going to try to scan her file in and post, but here’s one page from a presentation.

FWIW there was another option for four zones that split 1&4 from 2&3.  One advantage to the three zone is that Wyoming would only have one RO to deal with. I suppose Idaho also.

 

I didn’t receive a copy of the email from Chris French, but The Hotshot Wakeup did and covered it in a podcast today.
The podcast may be paywalled.. if it is, and you are curious enough, you could subscribe for a month. I’m a paid subscriber and I find it well worth it.

If someone sends a copy of the letter to me, I’ll post and we can discuss it here.

1. Chris French update on interim operational planning

********************

On May 6, the Chief shared our next steps for implementing interim governance structures and operating plans to ensure we maintain critical services and support. With so much change in the agency and so many folks that are no longer with us, these operating plans are important for us to maintain safety, continuity, and services across the agency. We realize that the organization today must share resources and talent and that all of us may be asked to help out or do work much differently than we did just a few months ago.

Since then, the Chief and I have approved several recommendations developed by interim working groups—many of which are already in the early stages of implementation. These actions aim to maintain essential services, address critical risks, and support the agency’s priorities. Key focus areas with dedicated working groups include:

• employee and public safety
• disaster recovery
• active management (timber/vegetation/fuels)
• recreation
• energy, minerals and geology
• NEPA planning
• grants and agreements
• information technology
• communication and legislative affairs
• fire response (incident management capacity)
• human resources
• law enforcement and investigations
• budget
• Chief Finance Office (payments, billings & reimbursable agreements)
• procurement & property services/contracts, facilities & leasing

It’s important to reiterate that these recommendations are not reflective of, or designed to inform, broader agency reorganization planning; instead, they are necessary to maintain mission readiness.

While many of these actions are still being finalized and embedded within the appropriate staff sections, I want to reiterate what the Chief said in his message—employee and public safety remain our top priorities. To that end, we are proactively dedicating resources to safety systems and programs, including training and qualifying employees with additional safety and risk management skills.

Here are some of the actions underway that will assist our collective efforts and maximize our effectiveness:

• Establishing zoned NEPA/planning operations in Eastern, Mountain, and Pacific regions to improve support for priority projects.
• Prioritizing contracts moving forward to manage recreation sites, such as waste management and purchasing of other maintenance supplies.
• Developing 90-day acquisition, partnership, and capacity plans to prepare for disasters on each administrative unit.
• Integrating national press desk and issues management with region/station staff to provide zoned coverage, enhanced communication support.
• Developing an active management collaboration team and tracking tool to help manage timber and fuels, focusing on FY25 contracts and agreements.
• Defining Casuality Assistant Program/Critical Incident Stress Management (CAP/CISM) responses and prioritizing the hiring of law enforcement and safety officers to address safety concerns.
• Updating public-facing websites and identifying minimum viable information technology and operational support.
• Streamlining incident procurement and prioritizing incidents for on-site support.

This is a significant undertaking, and your professionalism and talent make this work look effortless. Thank you for your continued adaptability and grace as we navigate these changes together.

*******

2. Secretary of Agriculture Letter on Prioritizing Wildfire

Here’s the Directives part of the letter:

A. I hereby direct all USDA Mission Areas to assess their ability to assist with wildfire response within 30 days. Agency administrators should assess the following:
• Take all necessary steps to ensure employees who can support wildfire response have the ability and leadership support to secure or maintain their fireline or fire support
qualifications (i.e., “Red Cards”);
• Assess all business processes and support systems for contracting and purchasing and identify any additional capacity available to assist with wildfire response during peak
wildfire activity; and
• Prioritize funding to increase opportunities for communities and private landowners to reduce wildfire risk.

B. Given the U.S. Forest Service has the strongest and most prepared wildland firefighting force in the world, I hereby direct the Chief ofthe U.S. Forest Service within 30 days to:
• Identify the impact of the voluntary departures on the firefighting and fire support workforce and propose a plan and timeline to remedy critical vacancies and immediate changes to business practices to ensure adequate resource capability and mobilization; and
• Identify and eliminate all barriers and unnecessary procedures, and make use of all needed waivers, to ensure rapid resource deployment when there are imminent threats to life and property this summer.

At Preparedness Level 3 and above, I hereby direct the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service to:
• Prioritize and redeploy the non-fire workforce to support wildfire response as wildfire activity increases. This will include a necessary adjustment to the agency’s other program work. The agency shall provide updates every 30 days to the Natural Resources and Environment Mission Area on workforce capacity constraints and anticipated impacts; and
• Exercise all available authorities, consistent with prior direction, to ensure the agency is using every tool and authority available to meet the Nation’s wildfire response needs.

Throughout wildfire season, I hereby direct the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service to:
• Prioritize wildfire risk reduction efforts in and around communities at risk of wildfire and, where possible, continue to offer timber volume consistent with EO 14225; and
• Use all available emergency authorities, including those outlined in Secretarial Memorandum 1078-006, to prioritize post-fire hazard tree removal and salvage activities as appropriate.

******

I’m having trouble imagining how other USDA agencies can help other than maybe, as the letter says, loaning business and support systems.  Probably NRCS has programs to reduce wildfire risk?  Maybe grassland grain and livestock producers need help developing some kind of POD-equivalents?  Folks at universities paid by NIFA grants could be red-carded? It would be interesting to see how the other USDA agencies respond. Maybe rural development grants are going to fire departments or could?  It feels like it’s imbedding fire functions, at least this season, at USDA. Proactive work in terms of keeping the FS from going to Interior?

3. Secs Burgum and Rollins also wrote a joint memo which basically says that they will work together.

4.  Communications Guidance For Employees

This is a piece by Chad Douglas, Director of the Office of Communication.

The basic principle for both: Only speak for the agency if you are authorized to do so; otherwise, be clear you are speaking as an individual..

We all enjoy sharing stories and opinions about our work. As Forest Service employees, we care about issues that affect our families, communities and careers, just like everyone does. I’ve noticed that because you care so much, sometimes on social media and in traditional media lines are crossed that should not be.

We want interaction with the Forest Service to be a positive experience for everyone, and for that reason, there are parameters around how we engage in both social media and news media.

So, what do you need to know before you post to social media or give an interview?

Social Media

Let’s start with rule one. Be clear you are speaking for yourself. That means you do not identify yourself with your job title. And, if you are posting to social media from your personal accounts, we recommend including a disclaimer within your profile clarifying that the views and opinions expressed on the account are your own. Also, make sure to only share publicly available information. Don’t post, share or speak about information you are privy to only due to your position.

Be polite. Social media can be both a very useful tool and a space that can quickly become overwhelming and contentious. We all know we aren’t going to win any arguments on social media. Even if you’re tempted, always keep in mind that if someone takes offense to what you post, they may report you to the agency. If they do, that could trigger a conduct investigation.

Rule two is simple: Don’t post or share personal social media content during work hours. The Standards of Conduct that apply to all federal employees say that, while on government time, we must make an honest effort to perform official duties. There are exceptions—like during lunch or on your day off—but as the saying goes, discretion is the better part of valor. We should avoid unnecessary risks, sticking to times when we are clearly off duty.

Traditional Media

We all have rights—and responsibilities—in this nation with a free press, as well as guaranteed rights to free speech under the first amendment to the Constitution. If you decide to engage with a media representative in a personal capacity, you should make clear to the reporter that you are doing so and not speaking on behalf of the Forest Service. Nor should you be discussing matters related to your professional capacity in such a conversation. It’s important that there is a clear line between personal experiences or opinions and those tied to your job with this agency.

So, what should you do if you are contacted by the media? If a media outlet asks you to provide information or an interview in your professional capacity, it is important that before responding, your first step is talking to your unit’s public affairs specialist. They have a responsibility to help determine the best way to proceed when coordinating media requests. If you work in the Washington Office, coordinate with the national press officer in the Office of Communication. Everyone else, including line officers, should consult with the appropriate public affairs officer for the unit, region, station, area, or institute. You’ll find this policy in Forest Service Manual Chapter 1650, Media Relations.

If the opportunity to speak publicly presents itself, be careful to avoid partisan political events. If you are a speaker at an event, ensure it is non-partisan. That doesn’t just apply to political candidate events or events on behalf of a political party. It also means any events hosted by a partisan political group.

In summary, no matter the forum, always remember to speak for yourself and not the agency, unless you are authorized to do so.

***************

 

So there’s a Federal Register notice today terminating the NWFP FACA committee and pausing the termination of the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board.

For context, I thought I’d find a list of FS related FACA committees this is from the USDA site. On the FS site there are more  FLREA RACs listed than on the USDA site.

 

Here’s a link:

Two thoughts I had:

“new governance models as we adapt to delivering contracts and agreements with fewer staff.”  I hope that these would included increased transparency (without FOIAing), clear accountability for deliverables (and how outputs and outcomes are monitored), and transparency about the accountability processes.

“We are offering lateral opportunities in key mission areas like minerals and geology and active management.”

When it seemed like my skills in reforestation and genetics were becoming unpopular, I shifted into R&D in the WO, and finally, NEPA, through a set of opportunities and encouragement from various folks.  I think of JR especially who encouraged me to apply for the WO-NEPA job, way outside of my wheelhouse, and FN who thought my knowing about science might help.  I wouldn’t be here (judge for yourself if that’s a good thing or a bad thing) except for both needing to switch based on the currents of program popularity, and to the folks who believed I could apply my skills to a different line of work.  As a person whose skills were once in the “active management” camp, I’d like to put in a good word for minerals and geology for expanding one’s horizons and the opportunity to learn new things.

Here’s the Chief.

***********************

Over the past year, we have experienced transformational transition. As you likely know, our upcoming reorganization work is not just a response to USDA restructuring, it’s something Forest Service leaders and employees have known was necessary for some time. This is an effort to optimize our workforce, sharpen our focus, and address fiscal solvency issues that have persisted over the past 12 months.

Given ongoing budget constraints, the agency made hard decisions to not bring back seasonal employees, strictly limit external hiring, and significantly reduce travel. Since that time, many of our co-workers and friends have retired, accepted voluntary separation offers, or left for other positions—leaving gaps at all levels of the organization. Underlying all of this is the anticipation surrounding what our new organization will look like—a process that began during the last administration and continues today.

You know these challenges better than I. You have been experiencing this on the ground and leading from where you sit through this uncertain time. Across government and in the Forest Service, we are experiencing things we haven’t encountered in a generation or more. While we await additional details, it is more important than ever that we meet this moment and convene and engage our teams.

I’ve shared that I believe it is important to listen more than you speak. With that in mind, I want you to know that I’ve asked your leaders to convene calls and spend time with you, whether in small groups or on regional calls. As we work through this transition, I want you all to engage in dialogue to hear and share thoughts, concerns, and ideas. Create space for others to share before you respond.

It’s important to remember that it’s OK not to have all the answers—none of us do. I have asked your leaders to provide stability and compassion.

As Chief, I’ve had the privilege of meeting with many of you across the country over these past few months. Our employees are dedicated professionals, passionate about their work and our conservation mission. Many entered civil service with a clear purpose: to care for the land and serve the public good.

I believe in you, and I believe in our employees.

As I said earlier, our upcoming reorganization work is an effort to optimize our workforce, sharpen our focus, and address fiscal solvency issues that have persisted over the past 12 months or more. What we do to move forward within that new structure is up to us.

As we navigate this time, I ask you to think about how we chart a course through the next chapter of our agency together.

Next steps

In the coming weeks, we may have more information about our organizational structure. In the interim, we are testing new governance models as we adapt to delivering contracts and agreements with fewer staff. We are implementing interim measures to maintain our readiness and deliver priority work around safety, communication, fire suppression, active management, minerals and energy development, and public access. We are offering lateral opportunities in key mission areas like minerals and geology and active management.

I ask you to stand ready to support this effort. Be ready to provide feedback, engage on transition teams, and lead discussions that acknowledge and carry forward the success of our organization.

We are living and leading in a truly historic moment. Years from now, I want us to look back and say we rose to the occasion together. That we navigated this transition while continuing to serve the American people in new, more effective ways.

This time represents both the ending of many things we have held close and the start of a new chapter in our agency. We will lead this work together and rebuild a cohesive, dynamic organization. Thank you for everything you bring to this work, and for your service, as we shape the next chapter of the Forest Service.

I’m going to be off working on a presentation the rest of this week and next. I’ll share the presentation here when it’s done. I will be approving comments. Others are invited to post.

My latest info on the FS is that

1. there is no plan to fire probationary and excepted employees

2.RIFs are coming but need to be reviewed by a judge.

3. Chief wants to push decision making down to lowest levels

4. Chief is working on getting more purchase cards

5. Whatever the transition is, it is designed to have least impact to district offices.

So I’m leaving it there for now, and people with more information can add in the comments.

Other miscellaneous stories:

1. The Hotshot Wakeup Podcast on Timber Orders

The Hotshot Wakeup has a podcast interview with me about the Timber Executive Order.
Joe Trudeau commented:

Regarding the 25% increase in production: my deputy district ranger told me last week that they need to produce a five year plan to increase production over five years. They don’t need to move 25% more wood NOW, they need to make a five year plan. Big difference. Furthermore, if you look at the FACTS data for acres harvested, we already saw an increase in production under Biden (following a decrease under Trump term 1), so, USFS is already on a trend of moving more wood. Keep the trend going on current trajectory, and you have 25% right there. My final take on this: not much will change. USFS is a supertanker that changes direction very slowly and in small increments, and the shift between administrations is more talk and posturing than it is substance.

I agree with Joe, and would only add that “making a plan to do something” and “doing something” are not the same thing. I would also add that at some point, when enough “sky is falling” emails overflow my inbox, I tend to tune the organizations out.

2. NAFSR (National Association of Forest Service Retirees) Letters

NAFSR has a letter about the proposed wildfire agency. They also have letters about other federal lands issues on their website.

3. NASF Letter (National Association of State Foresters)

NASF  has a letter on reorganizing.

“State Foresters can play a critical role in the federal reform dialogue, provided they are included,” said Jay Farrell, Executive Director of the National Association of State Foresters. “They are informed, engaged, and ready to ensure positive outcomes for forestry and wildfire management throughout this transition. While we are eager for progress, we urge a thoughtful and collaborative approach to achieving efficiency.”

While looking for that one, I found this letter to new EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. The letter highlights three policy issues:

*Reviewing and streamlining the Exceptional Events Rule (EER) for prescribed fire.
*Unlocking the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for woody biomass, in line with clear statutory direction from Congress.
*Ensuring clarity in the definition and implementation of WOTUS under the Clean Water Act.

Please add any other letters on reorganization that you or your organization have written, in the comments.

4.  Affordable Housing in Resort Communities Where FS Employees Live

Using shipping containers, in Buena Vista, Colorado.

5. BLM Law Enforcement Officer Reinstated.

This is behind a paywall at E&E News. While I was looking for a non-paywalled version I ran across this from PEER in 2023.

“A 2021 announcement by Interior Secretary Bernhardt that all of BLM’s law enforcement rangers would henceforth be supervised by other law enforcement personnel has not been implemented.”

Someone sent me the E&E story:

Roth’s decision says Kriley qualifies for federal whistleblower protections, concluding that he was removed as OLES director because he alerted senior bureau officials that his immediate supervisor at the time was attempting to improperly influence internal investigations into possible ethical and legal violations for senior-executive-service-level employees. That supervisor was Mike Nedd, BLM’s deputy director and its top career official.

The decision says “Nedd directed him to provide advance notice into misconduct allegations against SES personnel,” which would have included Nedd himself. Kriley argued this was not allowed.

Roth agreed, noting that Kriley “credibly testified he felt this directive was an impermissible attempt to undermine the OLES’ authority and independence,” according to the decision, which was reviewed by POLITICO’s E&E News.

Nedd also tried to force the BLM law enforcement office to pay for a $330,000 settlement payment out of its budget, which Kriley objected to, the decision said.

That payment was for William Woody — Kriley’s immediate predecessor as OLES director, who was also abruptly removed as director in June 2019 under still mysterious circumstances. Woody challenged his dismissal in an age discrimination and disability complaint against Interior.

Woody eventually withdrew his appeal for reinstatement after reaching the settlement with the Interior Department.

Kriley, who before joining BLM served as a law enforcement professional with the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service, testified that he felt Nedd was trying to punish OLES by suggesting the $330,000 settlement come out of the department’s budget. Ordinarily a settlement would come out of a specific legal fund, not a department’s budget.

I wonder what would happen if settlements came out of each unit’s budget in the FS? At least we’d know what was in the agreement and how much was paid..

5.  Softwood Lumber from the BC Perspective: Splitting the Collected Duties

From our friends in BC:

Canada and the United States have been without a softwood lumber deal since 2015 and B.C. softwood lumber exporters pay duties of 14.4 per cent, which are expected to jump to 34.5 per cent in the fall.

The industry also faces possible tariffs on top of existing duties after Trump ordered an investigation into the national security implications of lumber imports.

Eby has repeatedly questioned the purpose of the investigation because the province’s softwood lumber industry “poses no threat to Americans, except for more affordable housing,” he said.

The United States has collected $10 billion in duties so far, but that money remains legally locked up as Canada is challenging the tariffs as unjustified under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.

Previous softwood agreements have divided up the money collected, and Eby said both the American government and Canadian producers could benefit from those funds, which he said is an “incentive” on both sides of the border to “get a deal.”

Niquidet with the Council of Forest Industries said American companies won’t be able to access a share of the collected money unless their government settles with the Canadian government.

He could not say how long it might take to negotiate a deal, but “if there is a fair deal on the table, it could go pretty quickly.”

B.C.’s forestry industry is the one of province’s most important exports, with Niquidet’s industry group pegging its contribution to provincial GDP at $17.4 billion in 2023.

6. Gators Study Gators

Finally, a safety tip from our University of Florida friends..

Most bites occurred following moderate-risk behaviors, such as swimming or wading in areas known to be inhabited by alligators. The highest proportion of fatal bites occurred after high-risk behaviors, such as deliberately entering alligator-inhabited waters. In contrast, low and no-risk behaviors, like walking near water or simply being present on land, rarely resulted in attacks.

“The takeaway lesson from this study is that many bites can be prevented if humans are aware of their surroundings and minimize risky behaviors such as walking small pets near bodies of water or swimming where alligators are known to be present,” said Frank Mazzotti, professor of wildlife ecology at UF/IFAS Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center (FLREC) and an author on the study.

The most surprising finding was how high the percentage was for humans engaging in risky behavior. This indicates that humans, rather than alligators, are at fault in the vast majority of cases where bites occur, said Teshera.

The results emphasize that alligators aren’t seeking conflict, but they will respond when humans provide what scientists call an “attractive stimulus,” such as by splashing, swimming or entering alligator habitats.

Although some bites happened without clear warning, in many cases, people unknowingly triggered the alligator’s natural response to defend itself or to hunt.

Researchers stress that humans are entering the environment of a large, wild predator much like hikers entering bear country or swimmers in shark-inhabited waters and should assume some level of responsibility and attentiveness.

From this site
Thanks to all the folks who worked on this! Web and IT are among the less obvious but critical folks in the agency.

Note: since my original post, I have heard some forest concerns about how these changes are working, which are in the comments below.

*******************

If you use our agency forest, grassland and regional websites, you’ll have noticed a recent change. As part of an overarching effort to improve the public’s digital experience, we have migrated our websites to a new content management system. What does that mean?

It means that we’re going to have a whole-of-agency approach to website design and management. Visitors will be able to find the same kind of information under the same topics across all forest websites. The web is our virtual first impression. It’s where visitors meet our forests and grasslands, and it should be welcoming, easy to navigate and clearly demonstrate the services and value we provide to the American people. The most obvious shift is in our menu: Rather than basing our website on our internal organizational structure, the menu is topic-based, a design that was developed based on data and with the public in mind.

This web migration is a strategic overhaul that ensures our digital presence aligns with current trends, technology and federal mandates. It meets user expectations for modern web presence, providing consistency and improving agency efficiency.

By eliminating reliance on outdated, licensed technology and uniting the agency under a single, efficient cloud environment, this migration delivers more than $1 million in annual cost savings and redeems our fiduciary responsibility to the American public. It has allowed us to systematically review our content and remove redundant, outdated and obsolete information while preserving our records. We are ensuring that links work, photos are appropriately captioned, and accurate information is readily available.

These changes benefit you as well. The streamlined approach will make it easier to provide up-to-date information. Web contributors will be able to edit content more easily without needing extensive coding skills, and publishers will be able to push updates with the click of a button.

You will notice that not all content has moved. We have thousands of webpages across the internet, so we ask you to be patient as we continue to bring pages online. If you have any questions or concerns, contact your region or station web manager for assistance.

This has been a significant undertaking that required support from across the agency. Our webmasters, web contributors, data specialists, public affairs staff, developers, and many others have been working in the background to deliver these improvements. I thank the teams that tested processes and links, identified what worked and what needed to be improved, and dove into the details to make sure the old systems talked to the new systems. And I especially thank those who took leading roles in this effort: Mason Lowery for his oversight; Joey Jones and Rob Herring from CIO; regional web team members Joe Banegas, Cyndee Maki, Chase Martin, Kelsey McCartney, Witne Neil, Kate Salm, Michelle Tegan, and Sean Tullis; and those who led the project: Kari Boyd-Peak and Linda Harms.

***********

The folks at the FS also gave me a contact name for those of you who find broken links.. in the past, I know that’s been difficult. The address is SM.FS.webmaster at usda.gov

Reorganization and spring are in the air.. and so Char Miller was kind enough to offer his thoughts (on reorganization). I also asked him to write about how his thoughts have changed, or not, since he wrote the original Journal of Policy History piece in 2009, and the revision for 193 Million Acres in 2018. First, here’s his introduction from today (2025)

At the heart of this essay—which appeared first in the Journal of Policy History (2009) and was revised for Steve Wilent, ed. 193 Million Acres (SAF 2018)—lies what is now a quaint set of assumptions. That whatever transformations might occur in the structure and mission of the US Forest Service, that they would be devised in collaboration with Congress, in consultation with a wide array of interest groups, and abide by then-current federal laws. There were, I thought, sturdy guardrails in place that, regardless of the structural changes, would ensure the continued stewardship of the national forests, wildernesses, and grasslands. Since January 20 th , those assumptions have been blown to pieces. This administration’s dismantling of the agency’s capacities has been disturbingly intense—the firing of hundreds of employees, the retirement (forced or voluntary) of hundreds more, has left the Forest Service bereft of rangers, supervisors, and directors. Their departure is by design, of course: without staff, the agency cannot enforce the laws its public servants swore to uphold (and did). Absent these principled individuals, the administration seems poised to off-load federal lands to the states (see Martin Nie’s brilliant discussion of this threat in The Smokey Wire, April 21, 2025); or let them be picked apart by private interests (as an example, see David Mertz’s discussion of the Maude family case in The Smokey Wire, May 7, 2025).

So, if you’d like to step outside of the current (and cynical) chaos, and contextualize it by reading how the Forest Service has evolved over time and how change might have occurred in a more transparent, consultative, and democratic fashion, read on.

Here’s a link to the original piece in the Journal of Policy History.

As I did yesterday, I’ll pick some pieces out from the 2009 paper that I find interesting, which might not be yours, so feel free to comment on anything in the paper.

Scenario One: Evolutionary Dynamics

Since these laws were adopted, the agency has appeared to be wandering in the forest. Pounded in federal court, faced with drastic budget cuts and sharp reductions in personnel, it has struggled to find its way, leading one former chief to argue that it is mired in “analysis paralysis,” a logjam preventing it from doing its proper work. Complicating this struggle to define its contemporary mission has been steep declines in timber harvests, escalating population pressures along the urban-wildland interface, increased recreational use, intensifying forest fires, and serious water-management issues.

No wonder the agency’s morale is low. 10

The footnote goes to 10. Jack Ward Thomas, “What Now? From a Former Forest Service Chief,” in A Vision for the Forest Service: Goals for Its Next Century, ed. Roger Sedjo (Washington, D.C., 2000), 10–43; Char Miller, “Identity Crisis,” Forest Magazine, Winter 2008, 44–47. I don’t recall my morale being low in 2009, and if it had been low, it would have been more about irritating supervisors or employees, byzantine hiring practices, and inscrutable computer applications, and not so much about an agency identity crisis. But that’s just me.

And “analysis paralysis” was actually part of a broader social tendency, which we find in articles about “why we can’t build things” and similar topics.  Although when we worked on it (I was the NEPA person on the Process Predicament team) we never thought ourselves as part of a larger societal movement. For example in the recent discussions of Abundance by Brink Lindsey (April 25, 2025 to be exact:

The irony, as Klein and Thompson point out repeatedly, is that this new progressivism has ended up empowering an especially hidebound kind of conservatism: an enervating “procedure fetish” within government, combined with a hydra-head “vetocracy” outside. This combination has saddled us with a woefully underperforming public sector generally, and an especially profound disability with respect to any project involving the large-scale rearrangement of atoms in the physical world.

The FS was talking about this in the 90’s, but no one was listening. The change that I see is that due to climate change mitigation, different and more important folks want to rearrange atoms.

Scenario Two: Devolutionary Process:

Indeed, a proposed alteration that the Forest Service has faced—and to date has fended off —is the devolution of its lands and authority to the individual states in which its forests and grasslands are located.

********

Much more plausible are calls for the creation of a cooperative conservation strategy in which local groups and federal land managers together develop forest plans. Th is has a historical basis, too: Circular 21 (1898), which promoted the agency’s cooperation with private landowners, found its analogue in other initiatives that encouraged forest rangers to discuss with local communities and economic interests how best to manage the forests. More recently, cooperative actions have been nurtured by the National Forest Management Act and the Endangered Species Act, which require public participation and interagency coordination. They have also been energized by community environmental initiatives promoted at the 1997 Seventh American Forest Congress. Bolstered by university-sponsored think-tanks,such as the Public Policy Research Institute at the University of Montana, they have launched several successful ventures, including the Quincy Library Group (1992) and the New Ranch program developed by the Quivira Coaltion (1997). The latter seeks to operate within what it calls the “radical center—a neutral place where people could explore their interests instead of argue their positions—and at the grassroots, literally the ‘grass’ and the ‘roots,’ where, we believed, trust needed to be built anew.” 16 The “Lubrecht Conversations,” held outside Missoula, Montana, in 1998, shared this commitment to a “bottom-up” approach to national-policy reform. Local consensus management would evolve to include wider water-shed and bioregional perspectives that then would shape the national agenda.

Most captivating was the group’s call for the creation of a “virtual” Region 7 within the Forest Service wherein districts and forests would propose “to develop practical collaborative decision-making processes at the local/regional level, which might eventually evolve into a national restatement of basic mission.” If acceptable, the Forest Service would fund the experiment but would not retain authority over its design or implementation. 17

Although to date “Region 7” remains but a tantalizing idea, other experimental formats have been enacted. One on-the-ground example is the Valles Caldera Trust (2000), a government-owned entity that provides management and administrative services for the Valles Caldera National Preserve in northern New Mexico. This national preserve suggests the array of options that have been emerging in timber towns and ranch country in response to decades of political discord, legal wrangling, and bureaucratic entanglement.
This development received another push in August 2005, when the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation convened, a sign that community-oriented, collaborative conservation has captured considerable political interest and generated significant momentum. 18

I thought all this was interesting because it makes me wonder what happened to those groups? QLG, Quivera, Valles Caldera? And if Collaborative Conservation was a thing in 2005, how did we end up with the recent Rock Springs RMP, Lava Ridge Wind Project (granted those were BLM, and therefore more overtly/organizationally political). Are “bottom-up” efforts to some extent overwhelmed by national partisan political inclinations and the wills of key Admin allies?

Scenario Three: Revolutionary Impulse

The creation of a new Department of Conservation in the executive branch, by contrast, would expand the federal managerial presence and its regulatory authority. With a seat in the cabinet, this department would house the nation’s most important land-management agencies—the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the Geological Survey, the National Resources Conservation Service, and the National Park Service, among other entities. By creating economies of scale and greater efficiencies of action, this new department would save money and would serve as a standard bearer for the modern environmental movement.

Miller has a history of related efforts on pages 98-99

Despite the failure of these various presidents to create a conservation superagency, there are signs that an integration of agency function is under way. In 1997, Congress authorized a program called Service First: Working Together, in which the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management were authorized to merge various functions. One such joint venture is the Durango Public Lands Center. Th rough it, the two agencies manage their lands in southwestern Colorado. Th e leadership of the San Juan National Forest and the San Juan Field BLM Office, like the twelve-person staff , is “cross delegated.” Because each employee is responsible for “all aspects of the two agencies’ work and is equally responsible to the USFS Regional Forester and BLM State Director,” because each is required to be fluent in both agencies’ statutory regulations and wears the two uniforms, this is an innovative, even unusual, arrangement. The San Juan is “the only organization in the country with a single team providing leadership in all aspects of land management and public service for the two federal agencies.” 23

These interchanges are part of a larger attempt to merge scarce skills and resources among the nation’s land-management agencies. Forest policy expert

Sally K. Fairfax has argued that more should be done to facilitate the convergence of the identities and missions of these agencies. Noting that “the historic distinctions and feuds” between the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management “no longer matter,” she observes: “The hostility between the advocates of forest reserves and park reserves that began before either agency was formed conceals the fact that for most of their existence, they have been more alike than not. As timber fades as a Forest Service preoccupation, and recreation emerges as dominant [in] present and future concerns, the justifications for having multiple and distinct federal management agencies fade as well.” 24

The often-prescient Fairfax said this in 2005. Of course, both BLM and the FS have fuel management as goals, and BLM has the additional responsibility for minerals.. but still her views seem eminently reasonable.

Lending further credence to her argument is a November 2006 Memorandum of Understanding that the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service signed in partnership with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. It committed the four agencies “to carry out shared or joint management activities to achieve mutually beneficial resource management goals.” Service First authority has been utilized primarily for merging offices, issuing joint permits, sharing management, and creating single points of contact for resource programs. Given the patchwork of lands each agency manages and the proximity of their holdings, this integrative approach makes considerable sense, so much so that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers are considering seeking Service First authorization. In this incremental fashion, the dream of a Department of Conservation that has eluded several presidents.

Whatever happened to Service First? Often critics of rapid change will argue that change should occur slowly, but organizational antibodies tend to react strongly to change. For example, I was told by a knowledgeable person that the San Juan experiment was stopped by one State Director. I found this hard to believe, but organizations survive, I guess due to their strong immune systems.

I should note here that the alignment of the Dept of Conservation is not the same as moving the FS to Interior and not the same as “one Wildfire Agency”.  Still it gives us the picture of the long-term signal versus any individual reorganizational effort.

From Miller’s summary:

Separately, none of the three scenarios sketched out here—evolution, devolution, revolution—will have much chance of redefining the Forest Service’s twenty-first century structure or its guiding perspectives. None of these possibilities will be achieved without reference to or in combination with the others. Moreover, although any change in the agency’s land-management mission will require internal support from the leadership and staff of the Forest Service, the real locus of any such transformation lies in Congress and the executive branch.

But of course many structures can support the same mission.  What do you think?